Harris/Walz versus Trump/Vance

[River Dog]

That's not great to claim you are a Command Sergeant Major if you were not. I don't understand how you read what he said as anything other than claiming he went to war, which it seems he did not. I guess we'll see how it plays out, but I already knew the Democrats were liars or truth stretchers. Trump is too obvious, but they're all kind of the same insofar as they talk a lot, say a lot, forget what they say, and it often doesn't check out when you look more deeply at it or just doesn't make sense or it didn't say much when you analyze the actual words. Just rhetoric meant to sound good without any actual meaning.

If you're voting for politicians due to honesty, boy, you are voting for the wrong reasons.

I'm just rating the two untrue claims and their shock value, ie served in a war zone vs. an inflated rank. At least he can say that he served as a CMS.

And as far as honesty goes, even with these latest revelations about Waltz, the Trump Republican lies are worse by a fact of ten, and that comes from a guy that until 2016, had never not voted for a R POTUS candidate.

[River Dog]

I searched for news on this topic, and it's NOT picking up steam. Rather, there is substantial pushback on Vance's 'stolen valor' claims.

These kinds of attacks on a guy who served his country for over 20 years at a high level coming from a draft dodger and a private first class....just sounds weak and desperate. Walz was attacked the same way back in 2007, and he won. He's going to win again, this time as Harris' VP. Trump and Vance need a better line of attack.

I don't think the topic will have legs, either, mainly because it's about the Veep, not the head of the ticket.

Just a personal note. My dad served in the US Navy from 1943-46, so he was considered a WW2 veteran. But he never served overseas. For most of his time, he was stationed at a Marine Corps base near Klamath Falls, OR at a medical facility that treated Marines stricken by tropical diseases like malaria. Whenever the subject of the war and/or his participation in it came up, he was always quick to point out the fact that he never saw combat or anything close to it. He did not want to be confused with other friends and relatives of his that saw combat, some losing their lives, and of whom he greatly admired and envied, such as my uncle, who won the Silver Star in Sicily.

Is that a generational thing, that the Greatest Generation is much humbler and respectful of military service than succeeding ones? Or is it just the politicians that are looking for a feather in their cap, so they embellish on their experiences?

[I-5]

Just a personal note. My dad served in the US Navy from 1943-46, so he was considered a WW2 veteran. But he never served overseas. For most of his time, he was stationed at a Marine Corps base near Klamath Falls, OR at a medical facility that treated Marines stricken by tropical diseases like malaria. Whenever the subject of the war and/or his participation in it came up, he was always quick to point out the fact that he never saw combat or anything close to it. He did not want to be confused with other friends and relatives of his that saw combat, some losing their lives, and of whom he greatly admired and envied, such as my uncle, who won the Silver Star in Sicily.

Is that a generational thing, that the Greatest Generation is much humbler and respectful of military service than succeeding ones? Or is it just the politicians that are looking for a feather in their cap, so they embellish on their experiences?

First of all, we are all indebted to your dad for his service. The fact he is a veteran means he WAS in the war, though not in the war zone. It doesn't make him any less of a patriot. They don't all have to be heroes. I don't see anywhere where Walz is trying to 'steal' anyone's valor...what I've seen is he comes across as a guy who believes in service to his country, both in the military and as a public servant. Let's hope the conversation starts focusing on actual ISSUES. Unless the republicans don't really want to discuss those. Their current strategy is not a strategy.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm just rating the two untrue claims and their shock value, ie served in a war zone vs. an inflated rank. At least he can say that he served as a CMS.

And as far as honesty goes, even with these latest revelations about Waltz, the Trump Republican lies are worse by a fact of ten, and that comes from a guy that until 2016, had never not voted for a R POTUS candidate.

What do you mean? I believe as listed above he did not serve as a Command Sergeant Major. Did not serve in a war zone. He was a career reservist that rose to E-9 Sergeant Major without the Command designation.

I know plenty of reservists. It's a completely different animal from active duty. Reservists must be called to active duty to deploy for any lengthy period of time.

I'm not sure what you mean by what you said above. Not making a whole lot of sense.

We all know Trump lies more or sells as I call it. Trump's a salesman and to him this is nothing more than selling. Lies are selling. He'd tell the truth if it sold well, but it doesn't so he makes stuff up to make it sound better as part of his sales pitch.

A lot of politicians use lawyer speak, which is equally BS but more careful.

Trump just straight up does a sales pitch. There's a reason you've heard about used car salesman or sales in general. Trump took that reason into politics.

[Aseahawkfan]

First of all, we are all indebted to your dad for his service. The fact he is a veteran means he WAS in the war, though not in the war zone. It doesn't make him any less of a patriot. They don't all have to be heroes. I don't see anywhere where Walz is trying to 'steal' anyone's valor...what I've seen is he comes across as a guy who believes in service to his country, both in the military and as a public servant. Let's hope the conversation starts focusing on actual ISSUES. Unless the republicans don't really want to discuss those. Their current strategy is not a strategy.

What are you talking about? If Trump could actually keep this focused on the issues, he would be winning in a landslide. Democrats issues are terrible.

Trump is a populist Republican. Only reason he is even in danger of losing is because of how much of an unethical, entitled idiot he is. Turned off a huge bunch of voters who normally vote Republican like myself and Riverdog because he's a giant asshat which is the best selling point the Democrats have.

Some Republicans have turned away from Trump not because of his bad handling of political issues, but because he's a raging, narcissistic liar.

If Trump were disciplined enough to stay focused on issues, he would have already finished his second term. Democrats best line of attack is letting Trump speak. I even listened to a comedian Josh Johnson state, "Let him cook" meaning let Trump beat himself with his idiot talk. I couldn't help but agree.

Trump will never focus on the issues. That's his biggest weakness and problem. He wants to ramble and insult and play reality TV star running for president with all the cameras on him as he runs his mouth. If he keeps doing that, come November Kamala and Walz will be in the White House. Last thing Democrats want is Trump focused on issues.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't think the topic will have legs, either, mainly because it's about the Veep, not the head of the ticket.

Just a personal note. My dad served in the US Navy from 1943-46, so he was considered a WW2 veteran. But he never served overseas. For most of his time, he was stationed at a Marine Corps base near Klamath Falls, OR at a medical facility that treated Marines stricken by tropical diseases like malaria. Whenever the subject of the war and/or his participation in it came up, he was always quick to point out the fact that he never saw combat or anything close to it. He did not want to be confused with other friends and relatives of his that saw combat, some losing their lives, and of whom he greatly admired and envied, such as my uncle, who won the Silver Star in Sicily.

Is that a generational thing, that the Greatest Generation is much humbler and respectful of military service than succeeding ones? Or is it just the politicians that are looking for a feather in their cap, so they embellish on their experiences?

Both grandfathers served in World War 2. Both saw combat. One of my grandfather's was a POW in a German prisoner of war camp. My other grandfather fought in the Pacific Theater on the Philippine Islands. He saw his friend decapitated by an explosion that blew a tank hatch shut. My grandfather used to give food to displaced Filipino kids during his time there. They were really suffering as their home was a war zone. That WW2 generation went through hell with a Great Depression and a World War. Of course their character is better. They went through real hell and tough times and survived.

I still remember talking to an old guy I worked with who lived through The Depression. Said when he was a kid he was taken to his neighbor's house and dropped off because his dad had to go look for work. Left them there for months from what I understand. Community was a lot stronger in older America. They helped each other more in tough times.

It's absolutely true that suffering builds character and hard times build hard people. That generation went through some real tough times and suffered a lot.

I learned a lot just watching my grandfathers. Funny since neither of them talked too much. They just worked and took care of their families. It was a strong sense of family and duty as well survival as to why. I took that to heart as a lesson. Even my grandmothers just made sure the family was fed, taken care of, and worked if they had to help out too. A much tougher, dutiful generation. That 60s crowd really took us in a messed up direction. That is a big demarcation point in American culture and society.

[River Dog]

What do you mean? I believe as listed above he did not serve as a Command Sergeant Major. Did not serve in a war zone. He was a career reservist that rose to E-9 Sergeant Major without the Command designation.

I know plenty of reservists. It's a completely different animal from active duty. Reservists must be called to active duty to deploy for any lengthy period of time.

I'm not sure what you mean by what you said above. Not making a whole lot of sense.

We all know Trump lies more or sells as I call it. Trump's a salesman and to him this is nothing more than selling. Lies are selling. He'd tell the truth if it sold well, but it doesn't so he makes stuff up to make it sound better as part of his sales pitch.

A lot of politicians use lawyer speak, which is equally BS but more careful.

Trump just straight up does a sales pitch. There's a reason you've heard about used car salesman or sales in general. Trump took that reason into politics.

Waltz was at one time a CMS, but since he did not fulfil his commitment, for retirement purposes, they busted him back to his previous rank of master sergeant. So he can accurately say that he served for a period of time as a CMS, and that's how the Harris campaign edited his original biography. In my book, it's more of a technicality and differs from saying that he served in a war zone.

Agreed about Trump, and I hear ya about lawyer talk. The old joke is how can you tell when a lawyer is lying? Their lips move.

[River Dog]

First of all, we are all indebted to your dad for his service. The fact he is a veteran means he WAS in the war, though not in the war zone. It doesn't make him any less of a patriot. They don't all have to be heroes. I don't see anywhere where Walz is trying to 'steal' anyone's valor...what I've seen is he comes across as a guy who believes in service to his country, both in the military and as a public servant. Let's hope the conversation starts focusing on actual ISSUES. Unless the republicans don't really want to discuss those. Their current strategy is not a strategy.

I appreciate your compliment, and if my dad were alive, I'd pass it along to him. But I'm pretty sure if I were to tell him that he WAS in the war as you suggested, he'd say something self-depreciating, like "yeah, I risked my life in the Battle of Klamath Falls."

I never said that Waltz was trying to "steal valor". That's the buzz word that JD Vance has been throwing around, not me. I didn't see it as his trying to pretend to be some sort of war hero. What I said was that he was intentionally making misleading statements about his service record by leading people to believe that he had served in a war zone as a way to enhance his credibility on issues such as gun control.

[River Dog]

Both grandfathers served in World War 2. Both saw combat. One of my grandfather's was a POW in a German prisoner of war camp. My other grandfather fought in the Pacific Theater on the Philippine Islands. He saw his friend decapitated by an explosion that blew a tank hatch shut. My grandfather used to give food to displaced Filipino kids during his time there. They were really suffering as their home was a war zone. That WW2 generation went through hell with a Great Depression and a World War. Of course their character is better. They went through real hell and tough times and survived.

I still remember talking to an old guy I worked with who lived through The Depression. Said when he was a kid he was taken to his neighbor's house and dropped off because his dad had to go look for work. Left them there for months from what I understand. Community was a lot stronger in older America. They helped each other more in tough times.

It's absolutely true that suffering builds character and hard times build hard people. That generation went through some real tough times and suffered a lot.

I learned a lot just watching my grandfathers. Funny since neither of them talked too much. They just worked and took care of their families. It was a strong sense of family and duty as well survival as to why. I took that to heart as a lesson. Even my grandmothers just made sure the family was fed, taken care of, and worked if they had to help out too. A much tougher, dutiful generation. That 60s crowd really took us in a messed up direction. That is a big demarcation point in American culture and society.

Yeah, I heard a lot of those types of stories, from my dad's friends, from my college roommate's dad, the random guy sitting by himself at a bar. I didn't always believe every word, but they for sure went through hell compared to the way I was raised.

It's completely off topic, but if you haven't already, go see "The Boys in the Boat". I've not only seen the movie, I've read the book and watched a PBS documentary on the subject called "The Boys of '36." I forced my son-in-law and daughter to watch the documentary the last time I visited them, and they were both thoroughly impressed, or so they said.

[Aseahawkfan]

Waltz was at one time a CMS, but since he did not fulfil his commitment, for retirement purposes, they busted him back to his previous rank of master sergeant. So he can accurately say that he served for a period of time as a CMS, and that's how the Harris campaign edited his original biography. In my book, it's more of a technicality and differs from saying that he served in a war zone.

Agreed about Trump, and I hear ya about lawyer talk. The old joke is how can you tell when a lawyer is lying? Their lips move.

What? Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major are different. An E9 is the highest enlisted in the military. That is not a Command Sergeant Major. If Walz was a Sergeant Major, an E9, that is different from a Command Sergeant Major, which is a special designation of which there are few.

It's the same difference as a Master Chief E9 in the Navy and a Command Master Chief, which is a special designation for an E9.

Walz was an E9 Sergeant Major. But he was not a Command Sergeant Major which there are few of or Sergeant Major of the Army, which I believe there is only one.

https://www.army.mil/ranks/

I see where you got this idea from, but it doesn't even sound like the reporters know what they're talking about. Why would a Sergeant Major E9 get busted down to an E8 when retiring? That doesn't make much sense. Every Sergeant Major isn't a Command Sergeant Major. It is a special designation, which the reporters reporting this don't even seem to grasp. Man, journalists are a dumb group nowadays.

The original claim by Walz is he was a Sergeant Major, no Command attached. He was a Sergeant Major, an E9. I guess he retired as an E8 Master Sergeant for some reason. I don't know why Harris's campaign added the Command part other than as I told you some dumb staffer who didn't know what a Command designation meant added it on. We may never know, but it is not beyond possibility that some ignorant staffer unfamiliar with military designations added the Command part because they just don't know any better. Vance hopped on it, even though it is a tempest in a teapot. The original Walz quote never said he was a Command Sergeant Major, he just said he was a Sergeant Major, which was. An E9.

I still think it was a dumbass overzealous staffer adding some Googled information to Walz's military service. Sergeant Major is still an absolutely amazing accomplishment without the need to embellish upon it.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yeah, I heard a lot of those types of stories, from my dad's friends, from my college roommate's dad, the random guy sitting by himself at a bar. I didn't always believe every word, but they for sure went through hell compared to the way I was raised.

It's completely off topic, but if you haven't already, go see "The Boys in the Boat". I've not only seen the movie, I've read the book and watched a PBS documentary on the subject called "The Boys of '36." I forced my son-in-law and daughter to watch the documentary the last time I visited them, and they were both thoroughly impressed, or so they said.

Sounds like a Cinderella Man or Chariots of Fire type of movie. I tend not to watch too many of those any longer as it agitates me.

I watch and read and grow more irritated at the modern world and human weakness being celebrated and encouraged in America. Heroin addicted, obese, video gaming, entitled, lazy people crying for the government to take care of them while I watched these older folks build this nation up from wide opens lands without Netflix, the internet, and even access to grocery stores, contractors, and plentiful housing. Even when I hear an athlete talking about "slavery and plantations" when you know that folks that suffered through slavery and planation life had to really suffer through that hell, but they're stuck in a multi-million dollar contract and gotta make a dumb comparison.

It's making me jaded. I watch stuff like Cinderella Man where he's ashamed to ask for help because at one time an American male asking for help from even his neighbor felt like he wasn't doing his share in the world to the modern day where we have a government teaching young people they have some right to take money from the wealthy in taxes and redistribute to lazy people who don't work. Where did the pride go in these people that Americans used to have? I don't know. It is tiresome how much of an entitled bunch we've become.

But maybe I'll give it a watch some time. I usually get around to these types of movies again.

[I-5]

I’ll agree with you on one thing, Riv. This line of attack from Vance on Walz has no legs. He better come up with more interesting lines, or he’s cooked.

You just made my point, your dad - self-deprecating man that he was - was part of the war even in Klamath Falls. Not every part of the war is fought on the battlefield.

[River Dog]

I’ll agree with you on one thing, Riv. This line of attack from Vance on Walz has no legs. He better come up with more interesting lines, or he’s cooked.

You just made my point, your dad - self-deprecating man that he was - was part of the war even in Klamath Falls. Not every part of the war is fought on the battlefield.

Dad was a pharmacist's mate, about as small of a contribution to the war effort as one can get. That's why he was so self-conscious about his meager job in relation to others. There were times he was embarrassed about it. He would have objected to your characterization of his efforts as being part of the war.

[River Dog]

Yeah, I heard a lot of those types of stories, from my dad's friends, from my college roommate's dad, the random guy sitting by himself at a bar. I didn't always believe every word, but they for sure went through hell compared to the way I was raised.

It's completely off topic, but if you haven't already, go see "The Boys in the Boat". I've not only seen the movie, I've read the book and watched a PBS documentary on the subject called "The Boys of '36." I forced my son-in-law and daughter to watch the documentary the last time I visited them, and they were both thoroughly impressed, or so they said.

Sounds like a Cinderella Man or Chariots of Fire type of movie. I tend not to watch too many of those any longer as it agitates me.

This is a bit different. Based on a true story, the central character, a guy named Joe Rantz, was abandoned by his parents when he was in his early teens and had to live off the land to feed himself, yet he stayed in school, made it to UW, and won a gold medal at the Olympics as a rower on an 8-man crew at Hitler's Olympics. It's a feel good, underdog story, and a peek back in time to what life was like during the Great Depression. I first saw the documentary, was so impressed that I bought the book, then went to the movie the first week it was released.

Here's a link to the documentary.

https://www.pbs.org/video/american-expe ... chapter-1/

[Aseahawkfan]

Military people often call regular folk civilians, even after they get out. Some have a name for combat veterans and a name for noncombat veterans. Seems only military people seem to know this. They don't hate anyone, but you can tell they have a certain attitude about the difference between a civilian, a combat soldier, and a noncombat member of the military, especially the Marines. The Marines use the name Grunt as we've all heard for combat veterans and Marines that didn't see combat were called POGs (Person other than Grunt).

I think a lot of it is tongue in cheek, but they definitely want military members to make sure they don't claim what they haven't done. That is why this comes up when military service is discussed because veterans can be very finicky if someone claims combat duty that did not see combat, but civilian is still worse than a POG as at least a POG serves.

Airforce seems the most relaxed about this. Never heard much from Navy guys either. Army might have a bit of the Marine mentality, but most Army I've talked to see the Marines as less professional and arrogant. A bit of rivalry there. The ones most likely to be concerned about any Stolen Valor claims would be Marines and combat units that see the real fighting and aren't dropping bombs from airplanes or launching missiles from boats. The ones deep in the hell of war worrying about getting shot or blown up expected to fight the ground war and control the occupied territory.

I've worked with a ton of veterans over the years. Combat and noncombat, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan when all the guys deployed to those two countries came home telling new horror stories about war. That brotherhood and now sisterhood is strong. You gotta walk a careful line talking about military service and also criticizing it. That means Trump and Vance better not go too far or they'll piss off the vets as well. That's why I don't think talking about anyone's service is a good political line of attack unless you really have the edge in that area like Bush Sr. or Eisenhower or Kennedy as you'll look bad criticizing a veteran when you've done nothing like Trump.

[Aseahawkfan]

This is a bit different. Based on a true story, the central character, a guy named Joe Rantz, was abandoned by his parents when he was in his early teens and had to live off the land to feed himself, yet he stayed in school, made it to UW, and won a gold medal at the Olympics as a rower on an 8-man crew at Hitler's Olympics. It's a feel good, underdog story, and a peek back in time to what life was like during the Great Depression. I first saw the documentary, was so impressed that I bought the book, then went to the movie the first week it was released.

Here's a link to the documentary.

https://www.pbs.org/video/american-expe ... chapter-1/

I'll get around to it. Sounds less emotional than Unbroken. After reading that book, I could not watch the movie. I could not imagine it doing justice to Ernie. What he went through was a nightmare.

[River Dog]

This is a bit different. Based on a true story, the central character, a guy named Joe Rantz, was abandoned by his parents when he was in his early teens and had to live off the land to feed himself, yet he stayed in school, made it to UW, and won a gold medal at the Olympics as a rower on an 8-man crew at Hitler's Olympics. It's a feel good, underdog story, and a peek back in time to what life was like during the Great Depression. I first saw the documentary, was so impressed that I bought the book, then went to the movie the first week it was released.

Here's a link to the documentary.

https://www.pbs.org/video/american-expe ... chapter-1/

I'll get around to it. Sounds less emotional than Unbroken. After reading that book, I could not watch the movie. I could not imagine it doing justice to Ernie. What he went through was a nightmare.

Naw, this one is a feel-good story, underdog, poor kids from WA growing up in the depression, signing up for the team just so they could get a free meal vs. Ivy Leaguers on the east coast, kids of incredible privilege. The documentary has clips from Rantz's daughter about what he went through. You won't have any ghosts visiting you at night after this one.

One of the funny parts of the documentary was when they went to Germany and didn't know how to respond to these Germans saluting them and saying "Heil Hitler!", so not knowing any better, they started returning the salute by going "Heil Roosevelt!"

[River Dog]

Well, well, well. The Harris campaign has fessed up, admitted that Waltz "misspoke", the politically correct term for he lied, when he said "those weapons of war, that I carried in war," should "only [be] carried in war.".

"In making the case for why weapons of war should never be on our streets or in our classrooms, the governor misspoke," (Harris-Walz campaign spokesperson Ammar) Moussa added.

https://www.newsweek.com/harris-campaig ... ke-1937343

Anyone else want to bear their souls and admit that Waltz was in error?

[I-5]

Definitely not in error. The ‘misspeak’ is trying to be pc and appease what the right used to call ‘snowflakes’. I always knew exactly what he meant, why wasn’t I confused? He never claimed to be in a war zone.

You can minimize your dad’s contribution, too, but I won’t. He served in the war. Period. We can argue this forever if we like to get the last word. Should we?

[River Dog]

Definitely not in error. The ‘misspeak’ is trying to be pc and appease what the right used to call ‘snowflakes’. I always knew exactly what he meant, why wasn’t I confused? He never claimed to be in a war zone.

So who is not in error, Waltz or the Harris campaign? They both can't be accurate. One of them has to be false.

You can minimize your dad’s contribution, too, but I won’t. He served in the war. Period. We can argue this forever if we like to get the last word. Should we?

I'm not the one who minimized it. My old man did. But since it is a genuine compliment, I'll let you have the last word and just say thanks.

[Stream Hawk]

Well, well, well. The Harris campaign has fessed up, admitted that Waltz "misspoke", the politically correct term for he lied, when he said "those weapons of war, that I carried in war," should "only [be] carried in war.".

"In making the case for why weapons of war should never be on our streets or in our classrooms, the governor misspoke," (Harris-Walz campaign spokesperson Ammar) Moussa added.

https://www.newsweek.com/harris-campaig ... ke-1937343

Anyone else want to bear their souls and admit that Waltz was in error?

I have been sitting out of this discussion until now. I’m glad that they fesses up over the wording choice. It is really unfortunate that Walz misspoke, but bigger to fess up to it. All I know is the ratings are starting to build very heavily in their direction. I do not think this will affect them, whatsoever. Hopefully there are no more missed-vetted skeletons from the past.

[River Dog]

Well, well, well. The Harris campaign has fessed up, admitted that Waltz "misspoke", the politically correct term for he lied, when he said "those weapons of war, that I carried in war," should "only [be] carried in war.".

"In making the case for why weapons of war should never be on our streets or in our classrooms, the governor misspoke," (Harris-Walz campaign spokesperson Ammar) Moussa added.

https://www.newsweek.com/harris-campaig ... ke-1937343

Anyone else want to bear their souls and admit that Waltz was in error?

I have been sitting out of this discussion until now. I’m glad that they fesses up over the wording choice. It is really unfortunate that Walz misspoke, but bigger to fess up to it. All I know is the ratings are starting to build very heavily in their direction. I do not think this will affect them, whatsoever. Hopefully there are no more missed-vetted skeletons from the past.

Glad you decided to throw your two cents worth into the discussion.

I haven't heard Waltz himself fess up, but yes, it was wise of the Harris campaign to do it for him so they can put the issue behind them. It's hard for me to believe that the Harris campaign didn't know about this before Kamala made her selection. It was in the public domain. I don't think it will have a major impact, either, simply because people seldom vote for the 2nd spot on the ticket.

We'll see what kind of effect, if any, this has on Harris when the polling and survey data comes out next week. So far, Harris seems to be maintaining her momentum.

I read an article about Josh Shapiro which hinted that he might have been offered the VP slot but turned it down. He's only been PA governor for less than 2 years and having just turned 51, is still relatively young.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm interested in the next few months too. Right now the polls the media seems to be mentioning are the popular vote polls, while the swing state polls for the electoral college are far closer. That tracks like past elections given California and New York tend to push up the popular vote in favor of the Dems. These minor league attacks on Walz are just the start of the more extreme attacks being designed. It will be a few months of messy.

[Aseahawkfan]

So with this tempest in a teapot about Walz's military claims over, what issues should each candidate focus on?

Trump is doing his usual economics, immigration, and law enforcement push given the Democratic positions on these three issues are very divided.

Kamala is at the moment pushing Trump as the Devil and abortion, the two big Democratic lines of attack. What other issue can she tout or push to swing voters? Unemployment is fairly low under Biden, but inflation is terrible and people seem to have a very bad view of the economy under Biden-Kamala due to the crazy inflation that occurred and the Democrats generally get blamed for shoving too much money into the economy during COVID19 though Trump was happily signing those checks he doesn't get blamed for much of it.

What are the issues each can push that swing voters will believe or react to?

[River Dog]

I'm interested in the next few months too. Right now the polls the media seems to be mentioning are the popular vote polls, while the swing state polls for the electoral college are far closer. That tracks like past elections given California and New York tend to push up the popular vote in favor of the Dems. These minor league attacks on Walz are just the start of the more extreme attacks being designed. It will be a few months of messy.

She's made up ground in the swing states, too. In the NY Times/Sienna poll, the one that's historically the most accurate, Harris leads Trump by 4 points in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin:

New surveys of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania taken this week offer the latest indication of a dramatic reversal in standing for the Democratic Party since President Biden abandoned his re-election bid.

Vice President Kamala Harris leads former President Donald J. Trump in three crucial battleground states, according to new surveys by The New York Times and Siena College, the latest indication of a dramatic reversal in standing for Democrats after President Biden’s departure from the presidential race remade it.

Ms. Harris is ahead of Mr. Trump by four percentage points in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, 50 percent to 46 percent among likely voters in each state. The surveys were conducted from Aug. 5 to 9.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/10/us/p ... polls.html

I agree with you that the nationwide polling isn't really relevant except to note changes in the mood of the voters, who has the momentum, etc.

[River Dog]

So with this tempest in a teapot about Walz's military claims over, what issues should each candidate focus on?

Trump is doing his usual economics, immigration, and law enforcement push given the Democratic positions on these three issues are very divided.

Kamala is at the moment pushing Trump as the Devil and abortion, the two big Democratic lines of attack. What other issue can she tout or push to swing voters? Unemployment is fairly low under Biden, but inflation is terrible and people seem to have a very bad view of the economy under Biden-Kamala due to the crazy inflation that occurred and the Democrats generally get blamed for shoving too much money into the economy during COVID19 though Trump was happily signing those checks he doesn't get blamed for much of it.

What are the issues each can push that swing voters will believe or react to?

We don't really know what Harris is focusing on because she hasn't said hardly anything since becoming the presumptive nominee. She hasn't done any press conferences or interviews since Biden stepped down. Fox News has been keeping track of the number of days she's gone without holding one. The rest of the media has begun to catch on, too, and is getting anxious.

In the nearly three weeks since President Biden withdrew his candidacy, catapulting Ms. Harris to the top of the Democratic ticket, the vice president has shown little eagerness to meet journalists in unscripted settings. She has not granted an interview or held a news conference. On Thursday, after a rally in Michigan, she held her first “gaggle” — an impromptu Q.-and-A. session — with reporters covering her campaign. It lasted 70 seconds.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/busi ... views.html

Even though she's over 20 years younger than her boss, she's prone to gaffes and can give confusing, word salad answers to relatively simple questions. I saw her responding to a question and got mixed up on her job, said she was President. She recovered quickly and corrected herself, but she's not nearly as fluid as you would expect from a well educated lawyer who's been in the public spotlight for over 20 years.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's interesting that Harris hasn't done any press conferences or interviews since Biden stepped down. Fox News has been keeping track of the number of days she's gone without holding one. The rest of the media has begun to catch on, too, and is getting anxious.

In the nearly three weeks since President Biden withdrew his candidacy, catapulting Ms. Harris to the top of the Democratic ticket, the vice president has shown little eagerness to meet journalists in unscripted settings. She has not granted an interview or held a news conference. On Thursday, after a rally in Michigan, she held her first “gaggle” — an impromptu Q.-and-A. session — with reporters covering her campaign. It lasted 70 seconds.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/busi ... views.html

Even though she's over 20 years younger than her boss, she's prone to gaffes and can give confusing, word salad answers to questions. I saw her responding to a question and got mixed up on her job, said she was President. She recovered quickly and corrected herself, but she's not nearly as fluid as you would expect from a well educated lawyer who's been in the public spotlight for 20 years.

Harris also has almost no experience with economics and just about everything outside of law enforcement and the law. Harris and Vance are the two least experienced people on the ticket, but Vance can more easily get way with it as the VP than Harris as the top of the ticket. That's why I'm interested in seeing how the debates go and how convincing Kamala is in how she can handle the economy, immigration, and key important issues with her lack of experience. She was able to hide out as the VP, but now she will be front and center. The Democrats could do like they are doing right now and let Trump ruin himself by talking too much about unimportant, stupid things like some rambling old man which he is now and hope that carries the ticket, but hard to be sure it will.

Didn't think the candidates could get much weaker than Harris versus Trump, but it did. Harris is not someone America would trust as the President in the current world with all its issues if Trump weren't such a terrible candidate that can't seem to help letting his mouth ruin his chances as people grow weary of stupid talk on race and divisive rambling. He's not even as sharp as he was 8 years ago. Probably all the legal attacks, bad press, and the like have finally taken their toll on the 78 year old.

If Trump can manage some lucid moments on issues, he can can probably gain ground in the election due to Kamala's lack of experience in very important areas of governance. I've never heard Kamala speak much on economics and her plans seem to be regurgitated Green New Deal stuff which isn't particularly popular even in her own party. If Kamala wins, imagine that setting the table for an AOC presidential run. I wonder if you would vote for AOC over Trump, RD. That would be quite a choice.

[River Dog]

Harris also has almost no experience with economics and just about everything outside of law enforcement and the law. Harris and Vance are the two least experienced people on the ticket, but Vance can more easily get way with it as the VP than Harris as the top of the ticket. That's why I'm interested in seeing how the debates go and how convincing Kamala is in how she can handle the economy, immigration, and key important issues with her lack of experience. She was able to hide out as the VP, but now she will be front and center. The Democrats could do like they are doing right now and let Trump ruin himself by talking too much about unimportant, stupid things like some rambling old man which he is now and hope that carries the ticket, but hard to be sure it will.

Didn't think the candidates could get much weaker than Harris versus Trump, but it did. Harris is not someone America would trust as the President in the current world with all its issues if Trump weren't such a terrible candidate that can't seem to help letting his mouth ruin his chances as people grow weary of stupid talk on race and divisive rambling. He's not even as sharp as he was 8 years ago. Probably all the legal attacks, bad press, and the like have finally taken their toll on the 78 year old.

If Trump can manage some lucid moments on issues, he can can probably gain ground in the election due to Kamala's lack of experience in very important areas of governance. I've never heard Kamala speak much on economics and her plans seem to be regurgitated Green New Deal stuff which isn't particularly popular even in her own party. If Kamala wins, imagine that setting the table for an AOC presidential run. I wonder if you would vote for AOC over Trump, RD. That would be quite a choice.

It's not like Trump has a corner on economics, either. He'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to voters. He's talking about eliminating taxes on Social Security, which would be a disaster as it would bring the system several years closer to insolvency unless he could find a way to replace the lost revenue.

I agree that Harris's resume is very weak once you get outside the legal world. She's never managed a government or run a business, either. It's helpful but not necessary to have a PhD in economics or business so long as you can surround yourself with good people you can trust.

As far as who I'd vote for if given a choice between Trump and AOC, I would vote for AOC. First things first. Get Trump out of the way then we can worry about who ever replaces him.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's not like Trump has a corner on economics, either. He'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to voters. He's talking about eliminating taxes on Social Security, which would be a disaster as it would bring the system several years closer to insolvency unless he could find a way to replace the lost revenue.

I agree that Harris's resume is very weak once you get outside the legal world. She's never managed a government or run a business, either. It's helpful but not necessary to have a PhD in economics or business so long as you can surround yourself with good people you can trust.

As far as who I'd vote for if given a choice between Trump and AOC, I would vote for AOC. First things first. Get Trump out of the way then we can worry about who ever replaces him.

Trump has more economic experience by a good measure than Harris. Noticeably so.

I'd vote for Trump over AOC. I can't have things that far left. I guess you hate Trump more than I do if you'd let the country go far left than vote for Trump. Trump the person is a jackwad. Trump the politician is middle right, which if he didn't have such an odious personality would be a winning position at the current time. But his odious personality cancels out his middle right policy agenda.

Trump won't touch social security. Doubt any Republican will other than to maybe raise the age you receive it at. Don't know any Republicans other than rich ones supporting such a move.

Given the birthrate, I do not think there is any other way to keep social security solvent than immigration. Other than the pandemic years, immigration wasn't down during Trump to my knowledge no matter how much he claims he wants to fix it. No one but Ann Coulter's and the anti-illegal immigration folks would put any real stop to immigration. H1B visa program and many low skill labor jobs rely on immigration.

[River Dog]

Given the birthrate, I do not think there is any other way to keep social security solvent than immigration. Other than the pandemic years, immigration wasn't down during Trump to my knowledge no matter how much he claims he wants to fix it. No one but Ann Coulter's and the anti-illegal immigration folks would put any real stop to immigration. H1B visa program and many low skill labor jobs rely on immigration.

They're going to have to cut benefits and raise taxes. The first benefit they can cut is eliminate early retirement, take it out to age 65, same as Medicare. It kills two birds with one stone, keeps more experienced workers in the labor force, keeps them paying taxes instead of drawing benefits. They can also sweeten the pot for delaying benefits. I'm delaying mine to age 70 so I get 132% of FRA, the maximum you can push it out to. They can take that out to age 72. Increase the payroll tax. Probably not the popular thing to do, but it's better than the alternative, which is to not to pay out owed benefits. The way the law is written, they can't pay out more than what's in the fund.

Nikki Haley was ready to take on SS, the only candidate from either party I've heard make it a major part of their campaign. That's one of the reasons I want to get rid of Trump so badly, so we get more candidates like her.

[Aseahawkfan]

They're going to have to cut benefits and raise taxes. The first benefit they can cut is eliminate early retirement, take it out to age 65, same as Medicare. It kills two birds with one stone, keeps more experienced workers in the labor force, keeps them paying taxes instead of drawing benefits. They can also sweeten the pot for delaying benefits. I'm delaying mine to age 70 so I get 132% of FRA, the maximum you can push it out to. They can take that out to age 72. Increase the payroll tax. Probably not the popular thing to do, but it's better than the alternative, which is to not to pay out owed benefits. The way the law is written, they can't pay out more than what's in the fund.

Nikki Haley was ready to take on SS, the only candidate from either party I've heard make it a major part of their campaign. That's one of the reasons I want to get rid of Trump so badly, so we get more candidates like her.

Democrats are so addicted to tax and spend economics and Republicans so addicted to cutting taxes, they'll probably borrow more to keep social security solvent. Same as they've been doing. I do expect them to raise the age. People are living longer. SS was not made for people to retire so early and collect social security for 20 plus years into their 80s or 90s. They should be calculating social security off the life expectancy past retirement they originally calculated and raise the age accordingly.

I do wonder who will be picked next to rise up. I cannot imagine if Trump loses this time they'll back him at 82. That would be pretty nuts. Kamala Harris definitely a weak candidate who has done almost nothing I can think of. I sat thinking of what did she do while Biden's VP and she did nothing I can recall. She pretty much hid the whole time. I don't recall any major policies she pushed or championed. She was a throwback to the days of VPs like Dan Quayle. Even Biden was an extremely helpful VP for Obama and Cheney is listed as one of the most powerful VPs in the country's history. Al Gore had a few policies he pushed and his wife was active in policy as well. I still remember Tipper Gore working on censoring music back during Reagan I believe. Bush Sr. was was a powerful VP as well. But Harris was a lot of Dan Quayle.

That's why the best strategy is to let Trump wreck himself by talking too much. Kamala doesn't have much to talk about in terms of what she's done. Trump for all his crazy got a lot done. Cut the corporate taxes down to a globally competitive rate which brought home a lot of money from abroad and boosted the market up big. Cut business regulations heavily. Assassinated that Iranian general. His administration even got the vaccine started that ended COVID19 that he can't claim credit for because his looney MAGA followers hated it when the Democrats started pushing it. Trump's so trapped by polls and ratings that he avoids taking credit for things he did that his MAGA people hate. That whole MAGA thing seems to be a two way street where Trump can't anger them and he manipulates them on issues he can. Tney go back and forth pushing that toxicity feeding on each other.

I really am not sure what Kamala has done. I imagine her debate prep team will tout her as taking credit for Biden admin items even though she didn't seem to help. Biden got stuff done himself since he was well connected in Congress. And of course she has to go after Trump for January 6th so people don't forget.

I read he Neo Nazis are mad at Trump for supporting Israel and the Jewish people. So I guess they'll be working against Trump too, not sure for who though since the Democrats tend to support Israel as well other than that Squad arm of the Dem Party.

[River Dog]

Democrats are so addicted to tax and spend economics and Republicans so addicted to cutting taxes, they'll probably borrow more to keep social security solvent. Same as they've been doing. I do expect them to raise the age. People are living longer. SS was not made for people to retire so early and collect social security for 20 plus years into their 80s or 90s. They should be calculating social security off the life expectancy past retirement they originally calculated and raise the age accordingly.

I do wonder who will be picked next to rise up. I cannot imagine if Trump loses this time they'll back him at 82. That would be pretty nuts. Kamala Harris definitely a weak candidate who has done almost nothing I can think of. I sat thinking of what did she do while Biden's VP and she did nothing I can recall. She pretty much hid the whole time. I don't recall any major policies she pushed or championed. She was a throwback to the days of VPs like Dan Quayle. Even Biden was an extremely helpful VP for Obama and Cheney is listed as one of the most powerful VPs in the country's history. Al Gore had a few policies he pushed and his wife was active in policy as well. I still remember Tipper Gore working on censoring music back during Reagan I believe. Bush Sr. was was a powerful VP as well. But Harris was a lot of Dan Quayle.

That's why the best strategy is to let Trump wreck himself by talking too much. Kamala doesn't have much to talk about in terms of what she's done. Trump for all his crazy got a lot done. Cut the corporate taxes down to a globally competitive rate which brought home a lot of money from abroad and boosted the market up big. Cut business regulations heavily. Assassinated that Iranian general. His administration even got the vaccine started that ended COVID19 that he can't claim credit for because his looney MAGA followers hated it when the Democrats started pushing it. Trump's so trapped by polls and ratings that he avoids taking credit for things he did that his MAGA people hate. That whole MAGA thing seems to be a two way street where Trump can't anger them and he manipulates them on issues he can. Tney go back and forth pushing that toxicity feeding on each other.

I really am not sure what Kamala has done. I imagine her debate prep team will tout her as taking credit for Biden admin items even though she didn't seem to help. Biden got stuff done himself since he was well connected in Congress. And of course she has to go after Trump for January 6th so people don't forget.

I read he Neo Nazis are mad at Trump for supporting Israel and the Jewish people. So I guess they'll be working against Trump too, not sure for who though since the Democrats tend to support Israel as well other than that Squad arm of the Dem Party.

As I understand it, as the current law is written, they can't borrow money to support SS. If nothing is done, they'll have to start cutting benefits to current retirees, and if that happens, all hell will break loose as there are a lot of seniors that rely primarily on SS. And the longer they wait to correct it, the more expensive and painful it's going to be to put it back on its feet. All they've been doing is kicking the can down the road.

I agree about letting Trump talk. Give the man enough rope and he'll hang himself. But at some point, Harris is going to have to come out of her cocoon. She can't keep ducking press conferences and interviews like Biden had been doing. She's going to have to get specific about her goals, and when she has to start taking positions on the issues of the day, she's almost certainly going to lose some popularity. She's been riding this novelty effect for the past month, and at some point, the honeymoon is going to come to an end.

[Aseahawkfan]

As I understand it, as the current law is written, they can't borrow money to support SS. If nothing is done, they'll have to start cutting benefits to current retirees, and if that happens, all hell will break loose as there are a lot of seniors that rely primarily on SS. And the longer they wait to correct it, the more expensive and painful it's going to be to put it back on its feet. All they've been doing is kicking the can down the road.

I agree about letting Trump talk. Give the man enough rope and he'll hang himself. But at some point, Harris is going to have to come out of her cocoon. She can't keep ducking press conferences and interviews like Biden had been doing. She's going to have to get specific about her goals, and when she has to start taking positions on the issues of the day, she's almost certainly going to lose some popularity. She's been riding this novelty effect for the past month, and at some point, the honeymoon is going to come to an end.

You already know how this works. You borrow to pay for other things and use money in the budget to keep social security going. My background is in accounting and you took business as well so you know accounting, moving money around on books is not hard. Who's going to investigate it? Congress? Investigate themselves as they scramble to keep social security solvent? Not going to happen. We been kicking the can down the road for almost everything with the government budget. We been overspending across the board for years. Only time I've seen them pay down the deficit a bit was during the Clinton years when Newt Gingrich ran Congress and forced the issue. Why do you think I don't like either party? They pretend they want to do something, but when the rubber hits the road neither party seems interested in doing what they have to do to make the government budget work. Democrats won't look at Americans and go "The government is not here to give you things. So you're going to have manage money better to survive or suffer the consequences" and Republicans keep pushing tax cuts and spending on businesses incentives and the military because they little interest in responsible economics either because basing your campaign on responsible economics is losing position in a voting Democracy. Which is why we seem to always end up inflating our way out of these situations or trying to. Once you understand economics, these two parties look incredibly bad at managing money like some credit addicted shopaholics run the country. Even if you're a responsible politician, you look at this mess and go, "Nope. Not going to try to fix this and end up with ulcers and anger issues." You're hope for eventual responsible management of government ain't never going to happen. Social security will be maintained even if they change the name to Universal Basic Income or some other name and they'll tax the middle class to pay for it.

You want to know why they tax the middle class to pay for it? Because the middle class can't do anything about. Rich people will fund campaigns to put politicians in place that will benefit them. Poor people will riot, do crime, and act up if you don't keep them with some level of appeasement. Middle class people will "pay their fair share" and "follow the law" and try to maintain some kind honest or somewhat honest life because they were raised to do so while the rich and the poor could care less about honesty and responsibility unless the rich are teaching and promoting moral ideas to keep the middle class in line to keep their labor force and make sure those middle class or working class are consuming their goods and services.

The funny thing is the upper class does the same thing in Communist societies though they call themselves party leaders, so that is still a worse situation than being on a tax farm.

Suffice it to say there is very little incentive to fix the government economics by either party due to it being a losing position in a Democracy, especially for a group of people who want more and more and more stuff in the modern day. You'll see more government programs rather than less if you live long enough [bi]Riverdog[/b] an the middle and working class will pay for it themselves like they always do. Even the wealthy in Europe and other socialist shield as much as their money as they can often offshore or in other nations.

This is what I have learned investing all these years, watching the business news, and learning all the ways the wealthy shield cash not just domestically, but globally. The middle and working class pay for their own benefits in Europe and they pay for their own benefits in America as well as support the domestic economy through their consumption. That's likely what will happen to fund social security where middle and working class people end up paying higher social security taxes as well as increasing the age if it reaches a point where the government has no choice but to fix it.

Just as an aside, you want to know who I never hear talk much about paying their fair share? Wealthy people. They don't even think that way. If wealthy people had been given student loan forgiveness, they would have taken it without talking about it much. They get loan forgiveness and massive tax credits and incentives all the time that the Republican middle and working class don't mention or talk about because they've been thoroughly trained to believe that any government handout or benefit is wrong to give to people for doing nothing. Rich people don't think that way. As far as they're concerned, they'll take any break the governemnt gives and lobby for such breaks all the time and then keep them from making it into the news for discussion. Welfare for the rich is a very real thing in America, but the rich keep that stuff quiet because they don't want the middle and working class crying over it.

[River Dog]

All I know is that they are currently paying out more in SS benefits than they are taking in in revenue, and at some point, current projections are in 2035, they will be forced to either find more money to supplement the fund or reduce what's being taken out to match revenue. I don't think they can play some sort of shell game or rob Peter to pay Paul as you are suggesting. We're talking about too much money, like trying to hide an elephant in a phone booth. SS represents over 20% of the federal budget.

As long as we're on the subject of SS, one of the myths that Trump and his supporters like to float is that illegal aliens are taking money from Social Security when in fact, they are not allowed to draw benefits even though many of them are having SS taxes deducted from their earnings and are actually beneficial to the system. That's one of the things that bothers me about these folks, that they are so filled with hate that you can't rationalize with them.

[Aseahawkfan]

All I know is that they are currently paying out more in SS benefits than they are taking in in revenue, and at some point, current projections are in 2035, they will be forced to either find more money to supplement the fund or reduce what's being taken out to match revenue. I don't think they can play some sort of shell game or rob Peter to pay Paul as you are suggesting. We're talking about too much money, like trying to hide an elephant in a phone booth. SS represents over 20% of the federal budget.

As long as we're on the subject of SS, one of the myths that Trump and his supporters like to float is that illegal aliens are taking money from Social Security when in fact, they are not allowed to draw benefits even though many of them are having SS taxes deducted from their earnings and are actually beneficial to the system. That's one of the things that bothers me about these folks, that they are so filled with hate that you can't rationalize with them.

Why when they have been doing this for years do you not think this is possible? What exactly is your proof? They been robbing Peter to pay Paul to the tune of 35 trillion dollars. What exactly makes you believe they can't keep doing it?

I have read a lot of estimates on when things will run out from oil to social security to the bankruptcy of the United States due to its national debt. Not a one of them have been true. I doubt the 2035 number is true for social security given we are about to have a huge number of people die that form the largest demographic receiving social security in the United States. That boomer generation was huge having way more kids than my generation, though I think you might be on the tail end of the boomer generation.

Don't believe the hype on social security. There is a major push by business to eliminate social security because they don't like paying the matching social security tax for workers. You see a 6.6 percent social security rate on your paycheck but the actual rate it is 13.2 percent, the other half is paid by the employer. They don't like paying it. If they can get rid of the social security tax, they can cut their labor costs and boost profits and stock performance. In fact, one of the reasons they're pursuing automation is to reduce reliance on labor since labor has a lot of hidden costs that working folk don't know much about including taxes that corps and business people pay to employ people.

I would imagnie the government will need to institute a robot labor tax once automation starts replacing human labor and possibly paying uinversal basic income to maintain consumption and tax levels. We'll see when that occurs as that is a ways off, though it is coming.

I love my investment gains. I'll never be in need of things like social security or what not. I can't help but feel bad for most folks as most of the people I know need social security to survive. They're bad with money. They're bad managing even meager cash. They live paycheck to paycheck. If the government tries to force them off government assistance or social security, this nation will have an economic collapse like we haven't seen since The Great Depression and a homelessness problem on that level. It's one of those changes that just can't happen because of how bad the majority of people are at managing their money. It can't happen in any nation. I doubt any nation has people so good at managing their cash they can just cut the government support. At least I am not sure of one that exists as the vast majority of peopel worldwide are bad at managing money, especially long-term management. It really hasn't gotten much better by generation sadly even though the education to manage money is more available than ever.

In regards to social security and welfare or government assistance to working and middle class people, I'm a bit of a liberal. I don't want a damn dime given to drug addicts and scum, but working and middle class people are my family. Just because they can't manage money well as that is a particular skill and they can't can't control economic collapses and scams or don't have interest in making a bunch of money doesn't mean they should be left high and dry when they get old after spending years doing their best to work and take care of their families.

I've been investing for years. I've learned a lot of hard lessons and taken some hard losses investing, but I like investing. I' do it even when I took a 90 percent plus loss during the tech crash. It took me years to build my capital back up. That one hurt. I'm a fairly experienced investor that it took years to learn. You can't expect a large population of people to learn to invest well, so social security and welfare provide a nice floor and long-term stable income for those that cannot manage money well or need supplementation post work life. It is necessary and vital to a healthy economy.